On Wed, 23 May 2001, Joe deBlaquiere wrote:
> Could not have said it better myself. If you have the emulation then you
> can always use a noLLSC version of glibc if you are performance-driven.
I think there is some misunderstanding here -- I thought you are
recommending to drop the non-ll/sc code from glibc.
> Otherwise you can _also_ use the generic LLSC version. The overhead of
> having a few hundreds of words of code is pretty small (compared with
> 70+k of filenames via the BUG() macro) and ensures that either glibc
> will work. It's the best of both worlds.
Can't agree more.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +